Home » Reviews
Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly
By Dr. Julie O Osayande
Submited on: 27 May 2013 08:34:34 AM GMT
Published on: 27 May 2013 12:18:34 PM GMT
 
Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly
Posted by Dr. Daniel N Tagoe on 24 Jun 2013 06:07:52 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper claim the discovery of variants of ferripyoverdine. However, this was not shown, neither the process in which these variants would have been discovered


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Cant say without knowing what they are


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Not applicable


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There were no results


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    None was provided


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No methodology was menentioned save "using pcr" which was not described further


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Not applicable


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    The paper is not complete


  • Other Comments:

    Poorly writen or probably author want to serieliased findings.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Clinical Microbiologist with experience in molecular and biotechnological techniques

  • How to cite:  Tagoe D N.Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(6):WMCRW002768
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Dr Tagoe, Thank you for the review, it actually sounded as if it is the first time you are reviewing a paper or you have never done it before, (please I do not mean insults), why because, 1. first and foremost, this paper is a review on two major researches, it is a kind of summary of observations from these two published journals, how do you expect me to explain the process of obtaining the variants and the pcr procedures after asking the reader to see publications, (I have taking pains to bring out a piece of the paper and highlighted in blue where you should read and then proceed to review, obviously, you didnot even read before reviewing, please see complete references below. 2. Secondly, in your responses, I highlighted some words in blue (menentioned, serieliased), are these English words or typing error? What did you mean? One way that this may be accomplished, as presented in this work (Osayande, J.O., 2010: see experimental procedures), may involve the ferripyoverdine receptors (as shown by the separate clustering of some of the test strains on the homology tree), the Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains So122, Pr332 and Lo059 were already speculated to belong to another group of the fpvAII receptor gene (Bodilis et al. 2009), and from my PCR analysis, a completely different primer set , different from the already existing primer sets used for ferripyoverdine receptor gene amplification (De Chial et al.2003, Ghysels et al.2004) were designed, and the FpvA sequences following amplification were aligned using the DNA Manager Software to construct homology trees and as already stated above, the strains are kind of deviating to form their own separate cluster, separate from their References strains (Strain Mi162 in particular), till now, there exists fpvAIIa and fpvAIIb, could these strains be said to belong to fpvA II c? It will be difficult to conclude based on the fact that the ferri-pyoverdine receptor genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is about 2500 bp in size, the fpvA variants identified from this study were not this large, a possible knowledge of the pyoverdine region, including the complete fpvA gene sequences (Poole et al., 1993; McMorran et al., 1996; Lamont and Martin, 2003) in the difficult-to-type P. aeruginosa strains (Please see previous paper: Osayande , J.O. 2010)
Responded by Dr. Julie O Osayande on 02 Jul 2013 06:01:32 AM
Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly
Posted by Dr. Guadalupe Garcia on 27 May 2013 05:55:56 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
    Unfortunately not mentioned in the paper.

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
    Not applicable, as is a review

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Unfortunately not mentioned in the paper.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
    Not applicable, as is a review

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
    Not applicable, as is a review

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
    Not applicable, as is a review

  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Not applicable, as is a review.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes, because such knowledge could provide rational starting points for the design of novel antimicrobial agents, especially in connection with their iron requirement.


  • Other Comments:
    1. The references should be updated, 2011-2013 and No. 18 is incomplete.
    2. In Figure 7 not mentioned bands corresponding to lanes 3 and 4 (figure 7a). 
  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I worked for 20 years in the area of Microbilogía.

  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly[Review of the article 'Ferripyoverdine Receptors: A Probable Entrance Route for the good, the bad and the ugly ' by Osayande J].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002749
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
 
 
We use cookies on this website to measure and improve performance. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.